Staredit Network

Not only that, make sure that the reports come from multiple biases.

what else would they say?

Stated to be?
told to be?
asked to be?


And if you haven't known this before many wars were won becuase people took risks.... Who says a war can't be justified by taking risks?

Cann you restate that? It sounded like rambling.

*Somewhat sighs* But usually they do present some facts to at least justify their war agendas and not the "I think this war is justified because we believe that some foreign country as WMD's" or something along those lines. And not mere factoid waving... as 'some' did in recent past.



*Meh* Agreed.

*Sighs* They did show evidence to the president, which turned out to be blamty, but no one knew it at the time.....


Many wars are won becuase commanders have taken risks (George Washington can be an example)....Whos says a war can't be justified (Iraq) by taking risks?

Do not beleive anything you hear on the news, unless it is proven by a Government official. The news has a tendency to scare people, in order to keep the people watching and listening. This is how the news gets all its viewers such as you people posting these topics.

You really think a government official will tell the truth?

Haha!

There is probable ssooo much stuff that the goverment isnt telling us its just crazy

maybe they aren't telling us for the better? also for the worst too.

Can get anywhere else, please? It getting to be a rather faint proof of circular logic from your behalf.



Do you really are that trusting? Politics aren't exactly known for their truthfull accurateness. I, for one prefer to see many sources and draw my own stance from what seems to be more accurate (read, usually that turns to be the more truth leading from all perspectives shown).



The truth is the truth and the people demands to know it. And not with sugar coating, that is.

George Washington is too faint a proof? mmm well heres an example. On Christmas night Washington takes about 1,600 soldiers and re-crosses the delware and attacks a force of Hessians (basically mercenaries for the british). Now he moves on to win another vicitory later on but the thing about Washington is he skillfully retreats in order to put the most hurt on YOU.

Now this is all very risky at the time becuase its in the middle of winter, at night, its cold, your men are cold, armies back then didn't usually fight during the winter, etc...

Well I like sugar! /sarcasm

See? They never verified it, so this was only a suspicion, which turned out to be nothing. To date, no WMDs have been found, and I sincerely doubt that any ever will, meaning I think that they don't exist in Iraq.

*Star-Chris' circular logic and related b**s**t 101 class*
Axiom 1 - Keep repeating yourself over and over again 'till they give up. That way you won't have to show any evidence of what they're asking.
Axiom 2 - When you find yourself losing a debate, change your argument, maybe they won't notice.
*End of class*
The point here were the proofs of being WMD's in Iraq before the invasion, not the detouring you're trying to pass now with the newly found G.Washington's routine.

So far, haven't seen a single shred of gullible evidence on that behalf, so I'm beggining to think that this thread is justly deserving a lockdown soon.

At least Felagund understands my point... what you vehemently seem to be ignoring, even if it's rather self-explanatory in the end with that bolding and all.

What Basan? I read the first post and ignored all the others, so any understanding is coincidental. However in this case, it's the end that matters, not the means.

Basan, WHY THE fark DO YOU THINK IM REPEATING MYSELF???

I know why, its becuase Im talking to a liberal who obviously should be a conservative becuase your not open minded at all. I have seriously thought about if there are WMDs in Iraq or not and I always come to the same conclusion that there is reasonable doubt in my mind that they(WMD) still could be in the deserts of Iraq some where.

And YOU obviously haven't shown me that you understood my example, so I repeated myself in order to get a response out of you that you understood my post, thats simple logic.

Let's settle it this way. If there's no WMDs in the next, idk....1-2 years? THEN you guys can come to a conclusion.

agreed

I'm open minded or elese I wouldn't even consider that there could be WMD's in Iraq (if I were a conservative hardhead myself, I'd say that there are WMD's there even spite no evidences were and are found 'till current day ). And as in many other debates on similar topics if they haven't found WMD's in the latest 2 years (give or take a few), then most likely there are none. Or else the terrorists floating about would already have used'em. Just not to mention that the U.N. inspections previously to the invasion date didn't had found none (n' I'm speaking around 10 years of those before that here).
You and perhaps other conservatives are the ones that keep pushing the envelope farther to from where it should've been left alone already.

Then care to eleaborate on what the G.washington's march for independence (in 1776) has to do with the finding WMD's in Iraq from March '03 until now? Somehow I fail to see any resemblence...

Risks, I was making a metaphor, sort of.

Also, all Im doing is defending the fact that there still could be WMDs out there, none of use will know for sure. Im just defending the fact that there still could be WMDs, in the desert, sold to other countries, buried, etc...

Iraq= A lot of desert country.

Risks, eh? I still keep finding'em to be a hell lot different.
G.Washington's march for independency was marked by the fact the British were pounding too much of the U.S. colonies with taxes and other hardships (like military drafting) and the march was to put an end to it. In Iraq, I fail to see what WMD's, or the lack of evidence in the U.N.'s 10 years of inspections and later on after this (latest) war, have to do with oppressive measures against the U.S. (considering the range distance of the so called WMD's and related crap). If they're sold, to other countries go l,ook elsewhere, not Iraq.

And with the plus, that no one there really asked the coallition forces to overthrow Saddam, which I keep saying that should've been done during the Desert Storm (when the U.S. were under Bush senior's government).

For sums, imo, the news' basis of this thread was already proven to be incorrect (especially since no more recent news were confirming that one), so I'll let you figure out the rest... *Crosses fingers and hopes for the best*
------------------------------------
But now that I see/read it better we're simply goin' all over the same again... so lets consider leaving this be an burry it in oblivion (especially since we don't seem to get to an agreement point any time soon).